The Instigator
cody30228
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Evan_MacIan
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,601 times Debate No: 1263
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (15)

 

cody30228

Pro

The two parties I describe are
1. Republicans
2. Democrats

There are four MAIN political philosophies
1. Statist
2. Libertarian (Minimalist state)
3. Conservative
4. Liberal

The bottom two are associated with Reps and Dems

The problem exists with Conservative and Liberal

I will first try to prove why Conservative and Liberal philosophies do not (or should not) exist in politics
Then I will prove why Republicans and Democrats are not statist or libertarian
Finally I will prove why this is bad

1. Conservative and Liberal does not exist in politics
by Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary
con-ser-va-tim: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability

lib-er-al-ism: a political philosophy based on belief in

So one focuses on stability, the other change. Our politicians always look for change when they disagree with an issue and look for stability when they do agree. Therefore, modern politics does not focus on change and stability but promoting personal ideas. There is nothing wrong with this, but we can see why politicians are always going to be both conservative and liberal. Thus, the two political parties can not be described as conservative or liberal

2.Republicans and Democrats are not statist or libertarian
quick political philosophy lecture
statist: government has more power, can protect people better, needs taxes, needs violation of rights

libertarian: government has less power, people can protect against government, needs less taxes, needs protection of rights

Two issue will prove why Republicans and Democrats are a mix of statist and libertarian.
Gun control and abortion
Republicans are libertarian when it comes to gun control. we have rights to defend ourselves and raise militias if the time comes.
Democrats are statist when it comes to gun control. we do not have the right to own a gun, the government can protect us.
Republican are statist when it comes to abortion. we do not have the right to abortion, government tells us no
Democrats are libertarian when it comes to abortion. we do have the right to abortion, government stays away

3. This is bad
As we can see, both political parties are divided by statist and libertarian inside themselves. Thus, there is fundamental political friction inside the parties. Furthermore, both parties have no clear cut stance on every issue, since both parties flip-flop. Thus, a full statist or full libertarian will not find happiness in any political party. Thus, no cooperation will be alive in side political parties. Thus, there is no underlaying principles of philosophy. Thus, the two political parties are just there to combat one another. Thus, they have no purpose in regards to politics.
Two new political parties, one statist and one libertarian would make a better America.
1. We would understand the issues and who supports what
2. The parties, when wrong, will be predicted as wrong and not fight it
-Currently, most issued are set like this. One party picks a side (good). Another party picks the opposite side (bad). SO all we have is debate for debate, not what's best
Evan_MacIan

Con

I am going to cede most of what you wrote right of the bat. Otherwise, I believe this topic would be far too broad, and I think you got much of it right, anyway.

First, I am going to say right off the bat that I agree that our current two party system is flawed. I also agree that the two majority parties, for the most part, do not represent the majority of people who designate themselves one or the other.

However, I disagree that the apparent inconsistencies in the parties political stances are bad, and I also disagree with your solution.

I). The apparent inconsistencies are good.
A). The inconsistencies of the political parties reflect real inconsistencies among the American populace.
B). The inconsistencies (among the populace) are a result of a considerably more complex process of thought than the Libertarian vs. Statist model. They take into account pragmatism, morality, empirical data, upbringing, personal experience, State vs Central government, which the Libertarian vs Statist model does not account for.

II). Your solution is deeply flawed.
A). The Libertarian vs Statist model does not work
i). At a certain point Libertarianism becomes anarchy and Statism becomes Totalitarianism. Your model would have everyone supporting one or the other. As every politician is a balance of Liberal and Conservative ideas, so every politician is a balance of Libertarian and Statist ideas.
B). A different two party system would not reflect the attitudes of the people any better than the current system
i). Politics is simply too complex to boil it down to two sides
ii). Nobody thinks along purely libertarian or purely statist lines.

Basically, I think you're replacing one overly simplistic system with another overly simplistic system. You're correct that the current party system does not work well but you are off the walls wrong about why.

I think that pretty much covers it.
Debate Round No. 1
cody30228

Pro

Well thank you for making this debate very easy to, well debate. So we agree on definitions blah blah blah

ok, in regards to you
I)Apparent inconsistencies are good
A)Reflect real inconsistencies
People have real inconsistencies, yes, but the chances that the inconsistencies that the people have match that of the standard model is very unlikely. Most people do not lean towards stability or change (current model). most people lean towards oppressive government versus no government. I am pro gun control but also pro choice. i cannot align myself to the current system because i am half and half. I understand that is just me, but it goes down to basic principles. People should have a standard code.

Example, they usually support less government interference.

They are divided on what party to support and the party supports what the other party doesnt (kinda threw that in at the end)

B)More complex process
The points that Conser/Lib take into account are not good. One, morality is always inter subjective and should be excluded from politics. Hitler's morality was different than Gandhi's. Thus, a model excluding this is good
Empirical data apparently has no basis in the current system because both parties skew it and run different ways. Why?

*************As i said before, because these parties take stance against one
another, not following a common principle to better the country**************

This is a major point I am trying to prove. The data taken into account on the current model is used for political gain.

II) Solution flawed
A) Libertarian/Statist model does not work
Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism. The point is, people would make sure their views do not to such an extreme, thus they balance themselves out. Today, no one has a problem with being a staunch liberal democrat or a radical right-winged republican. Sometimes it's encouraged. My model would stop these extreme from becoming popular

B) I summarize your B point as the last few lines
that I am replacing a simple system with another simple system.
I never that a statist/libertarian model would be perfect. i simply said it would be better.
-My burden for debate is to prove the current model is flawed. I don't NEED to provide a counter model. I just do. Yes this model would have flaws. It is simple. But it is simple AND it makes sense. The goal of my model is to better America, not to better one's self.
Evan_MacIan

Con

"People have real inconsistencies, yes, but the chances that the inconsistencies that the people have match that of the standard model is very unlikely."
That is true. However, they don't match the model for reasons different from the ones you're giving. We'll get into that more later.

"Most people do not lean towards stability or change (current model)."
I would argue that that is not the current model. I've accepted your definitions, but I don't accept that the words are used properly. You yourself point out that nobody really follows this model.

"I understand that is just me, but it goes down to basic principles. People should have a standard code."
But people don't have a standard code, and that's really the gist of my whole argument. In a pluralistic democracy you are never going to have a two party system that works.

"The points that Conser/Lib take into account are not good."
That is absolutely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is this is a democracy

"Thus, a model excluding this (morality) is good"
I'm going to go a bit off topic and then get back to the point. "Good" itself is a moral judgment. You can not have a coherent model without morality. A government that does not base its decisions on what's good or bad is insanity. Anyways, that's beside the point. Regardless of whether or not morality should (also a moral term) be used in determining one's stance on a political issue, it IS used. The fact of the matter is this is a democracy. The system is supposed to fit the people. You don't make a system and tell everybody who doesn't fit in that they're wrong, especially when the MAJORITY of people wouldn't fit in. Your model is not realistic. The problems and issues of politics are too complex to only have two sides.

"Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism."
Obviously, which is why your two parties wouldn't work.

"The point is, people would make sure their views do not to such an extreme, thus they balance themselves out."
I don't see how that would work, since you're only drawing another line right down the middle and telling everyone to pick a side.

"Today, no one has a problem with being a staunch liberal democrat or a radical right-winged republican."
That's not true. Most people I know try to say that they are moderates.

"My model would stop these extreme from becoming popular"
Again, I don't see how. All you're doing is saying that the extremes we have now are wrong and then setting up two new extremes.

"I never that a statist/libertarian model would be perfect. i simply said it would be better."
I don't see how it would be better. Everyone is, as you said, a mix of conservative and liberal, and everyone is, as you agreed, a mix of libertarian and statist.

"I don't NEED to provide a counter model."
I disagree. Reducto ad absurdum. You present what you believe is a problem. Then you present a model that removes that problem. If the model is the logical solution to the problem you presented, and that model is worse than the status quo, then your problem is at least incomplete, if not wrong altogether.

"But it is simple AND it makes sense."
But I don't think it makes sense. **********The summary of my arguments********** It does not take into account the complexity of politics. Take, for example, universal health care. What if I support it at the state level, but I think the Federal government should stay away? Is that a statist or libertarian position. Or what if the majority of a foreign country with a totalitarian government want liberated from their government. Is supporting action in that country libertarian of statist? What about giving drivers licenses to illegals? Life is far more complex than you model, making it less than useless.

"The goal of my model is to better America, not to better one's self."
A better America would have political parties that represent everyone.
Debate Round No. 2
cody30228

Pro

TO begin, you have yet to prove why our current system is not flawed. Therefore you agree. and if you agree, you support the primary part of my side.

but beyond that, here is all you said
"You yourself point out that nobody really follows this model."
-This means that there is no underlaying premise between the two parties. Thus, they have no real premise.
Right there you admit that they are flawed and you agree with me

"But people don't have a standard code, and that's really the gist of my whole argument. In a pluralistic democracy you are never going to have a two party system that works."
-People do not have a standard code that matches the current code. most people believe in the same reasoning for most issues. too much or too little governmental control. Yes, a 2 party system will always have quarks, but if i used a multi-party system, it would change the basis for this debate. I am arguing the the current bi-partisan govt. is flawed, not all are.

"""Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism."
Obviously, which is why your two parties wouldn't work.

"Today, no one has a problem with being a staunch liberal democrat or a radical right-winged republican."
That's not true. Most people I know try to say that they are moderates.""
-Ok this is the exchange we had earlier
First line, I was saying, people would be discouraged from believing teh state should have 100% power or 0% of the power. Thus avoiding your problems.
Well i guess the second part is just personal experience.

To summarize the last few arguments
You made the point that my model is not better
i disprove that above
You state I must prove an alternative
i apologize, the standard debate (LD DEBATE) i follow does not require me to have a counter plan, but i still made one that i say is better. even though you still agree with the resolution
Evan_MacIan

Con

"TO begin, you have yet to prove why our current system is not flawed. Therefore you agree. and if you agree, you support the primary part of my side."
-Read the resolution again. The resolution states that the current system is flawed because of the political philosophy behind it. You go on to explain that it is flawed because it is divided up between liberal and conservative. I agree that the system is flawed, but for entirely different reasons than the one given in the resolution.

"This means that there is no underlaying premise between the two parties. Thus, they have no real premise. Right there you admit that they are flawed and you agree with me"
-Not true. I simply denied that the underlying premise that you stated is not the one they followed. Which means I very much disagree with you, because that underlying premise which I say is in your head is the foundation of all of your attacks.

"most people believe in the same reasoning for most issues."
-No they don't. You assume that people are entirely consistent and informed. You also assume that the reasoning can be dummied down to a level that simply is not realistic.

"""Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism."
Obviously, which is why your two parties wouldn't work.'
-You just quoted yourself there.

In the final analysis, I believe you have failed to prove that the present system is flawed in the way you say it is, I still don't get the distinction between the Lib/Con and the Lib/Stat models (other than one is apparently more how people think, which is unproven) and I think you vastly oversimplify the complex nature of politics. You even failed to apply your model to the few examples I gave that I believe invalidate it.

I'm tired and I have school tomorrow, but this was a good debate. Good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
The two parties have endured because their ideologies appeal to mass consumption. There ARE a multitude of parties out there who are represented in every national election, but don't get exposure because they aren't widely accepted in their ideology.

Then you have nut jobs like Ron Paul claiming to be republicans and respected folks like Joe Leiberman who are very conservative in their views claiming to be democrats. Add in the sound bite mentality of the public and you have a recipe for chaos.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
You both went way off of what the resolution asks you to debate about. My vote goes to Con, though, for at least trying to reinstate some of what the resolution is actually asking into the debate. :P
Posted by lemonsmile 9 years ago
lemonsmile
we just need to fix the way america acts today. America will sink of float has america not has a party.

this is were cody calls me a commi
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
i agree with multiple parties
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
Because we need a whole bunch more of them. A two party system means everybody loses. We need at least four or five major parties.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
Let me ask a question then in regards to one of your comments,
"You're correct that the current party system does not work well but you are off the walls wrong about why."
So why are they wrong?

*not for me to use in debate
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
* liberal definition last word is change
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cody30228 7 years ago
cody30228
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Modus.Operandi 9 years ago
Modus.Operandi
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by hjfrutwiufy 9 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lemonsmile 9 years ago
lemonsmile
cody30228Evan_MacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30